player-developer-relationship
Latest
Massively's EVE Online CSM Interview -- Community backlash
In an effort to get players more involved in the development process of EVE Online, CCP Games began the Council of Stellar Management programme back in 2008. Twice per year, developers meet up with this democratically elected group of players to discuss issues ranging from bug-fixes and balance tweaks to feedback on future expansions and how players recieved the previous expansion. The latest summit was not without its troubles, with chairwoman Mynxee and council member Ankhesentapemkah expressing their concern over CCP's attitude during the summit. In the first of our two-part interview with EVE's Council of Stellar Management, we asked some general questions about how the summit went and what could be done to improve the CSM process. We gained valuable insight into what exactly CCP committed to do this term, what happens to ideas put forward by the CSM after approval and what's being done to improve communication between the council and CCP. In this vital second part of the interview, we moved on to more hard-hitting questions on player reactions to the summit meeting minutes, CCP's current assignment of development resources and whether the council can really achieve anything over the next 18 months. Skip past the cut for an illuminating look at the council's opinion on these explosive issues.
Massively's EVE Online CSM Interview -- The summit
When it comes to getting players involved in the development process, EVE Online's democratically elected Council of Stellar Management has up until now been a clear success. Previous council members have managed to get some important features implemented in the game and helped CCP with feedback on up-coming expansions. Last month, members of the fifth council met with CCP in Iceland for the first of their twice-yearly development summits. In meetings with developers, they put forward issues deemed important by the player-base. Initial impressions from the summit appeared grim, with both chairwoman Mynxee and council member Ankhesentapemkah voicing concerns on their personal blogs. Players were left waiting for the official meeting minutes to be published so they could decide for themselves whether or not those concerns were justified. The summit meeting minutes were released last week to some strong reactions within the community. The bulk of the negative reactions seemed to stem from CCP's inability to commit definite resources to any CSM issues. The community backlash was further amplified by a later devblog setting out CCP's current development schedule for the next 18 months. Of course, the people best qualified to talk about how the summit went are the council delegates themselves. Having been present at the meetings and knowing more about CCP's future expansion plans than the rest of the player-base, members of the council should have a much clearer picture of the state of play than the average player. To help clarify some of the community's biggest issues, Massively caught up with the CSM delegates and asked them some important questions about the summit and CCP's current development plans. In this first of our collossal two-part interview with EVE's Council of Stellar Management, I probe members of the council for their thoughts on the summit.
SOE caught red-handed: EQ2 Player / Dev relationship breached ethical boundaries
Several days ago Massively reported that EQ2 Flames administrator broke the story on a scandal that regards numerous members from Unhallowed Triad, a guild on EQ2's Test server that was transferred to Unrest, a Live server through an inside connection at SOE. Character transfers from the Test server to a Live one is not allowed and against current SOE transfer policy; albeit, the EULA has a clause that SOE may change this policy at any time. However, the case is made that a Player / Dev affiliation has led to corruption, leaving many infuriated players with lots of unanswered questions as seen in these two threadnaughts. To recap for those not following this closely or wanting to sift through 100+ pages on the forums: SOE employee(s) abused their power breaking various codes of ethics (confirmed & guilty) Numerous Test players accuse Unhallowed Triad with a history of exploitation and getting away with it in due part to their SOE connection (rumors) Someone at SOE made the call to transfer Test characters to a Live server breaking policy (confirmed & guilty) Not only were characters transferred to Unrest, but items as well. Unhallowed Triad's Guild level was also inflated to 60. (confirmed & guilty) Many Unhallowed Triad guild members admitted to transferring off test in Assassin's chat (confirmed) Several Unhallowed Triad guild members were transferred unknowingly (more than likely) Legitimately leveled characters belonging to several Unhallowed Triad members were transferred over from other servers or already leveled on the Unrest server (confirmed) Unhallowed Triad guild tag no longer exists but there other guild tag Unholy Trinity exists and their Guild level stands at 30 (confirmed) All players on the Test server have not been given the same opportunity to transfer to a Live server The evidence found via EQ2 Players alone is overwhelming. So much so that it's impossible to sweep all the allegations under-the-rug. Initially, SOE was quick to react as both Alan "Brenlo" Crosby, Director of Global Community Relations and Bruce "Froech" Ferguson, EQ2's new Senior Producer admitted to SOE's involvement. Well, rather that someone at SOE made the call to override the policy, but in a good natured manner to reward certain players for their hard work on the Test server. Not a smart choice of words or tone given EQ2 players warranted concerns. In any case, Ferguson claims the transferred characters will be removed. Since their initial statements and response there has been no further word from a SOE representative on this matter.
